Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Instead of watching stupid videos that someone else made to suit his own needs, and instead of reading someone else's clueless understanding of his theory, you better download his theory and read it yourself (it's 56 pages long) or just read his interview here:

https://superscholar.org/interviews/chr ... el-langan/

Start from where it says:
"Can you sketch the CTMU — in plain English — for our readers? "

Warning: there's asmall part that refers to religion, but that doesn't concern me actually other than as an example to understand what he says.

Einstein had an IQ of 185 (?) yet very few people can even come close to understanding his theories. This guy has 200-210!!

[repulsewarrior]

...thanks Pyr; very interesting stuff.

[Lordo]

Instead of watching stupid videos that someone else made to suit his own needs, and instead of reading someone else's clueless understanding of his theory, you better download his theory and read it yourself (it's 56 pages long) or just read his interview here:

https://superscholar.org/interviews/chr ... el-langan/

Start from where it says:
"Can you sketch the CTMU — in plain English — for our readers? "

Warning: there's asmall part that refers to religion, but that doesn't concern me actually other than as an example to understand what he says.

Einstein had an IQ of 185 (?) yet very few people can even come close to understanding his theories. This guy has 200-210!!

You seemed to be well impressed with his IQ, I would need to see his certification before I even begin to believe his result.

Secondly were you born stupid or were you educated into stupidty afterwards,

If he indeed has pages showing mathematical calculations to prove the existance by all means post it here and lets have a look at it. But if it is anything like the logic he has used in the past I would not bother it is bound to be shit.

If his proofs are anything like this, I do believe he knows what to do with them after turning them into an egg shape.

The Scientific Arguments Presented by Christopher Langan
From a scientific standpoint, Christopher Langan’s theory is more of a hypothesis than an actual theory. His observations are ideas that have no way to be proven falsifiable because they are subjective. There is no real way to experiment to see if his ideas could be proven true, just as there are no real ways to experiment to see if they could be proven false.
His arguments are also filled with neologisms. Here’s an example of a neologism to consider.
Imagine that everyone says that you can throw a 150 mile per hour fastball. No one is baseball can throw a ball that fast. Not even a professional. But you’ve told a friend that you can throw that fast. Maybe you’ve got some “proof” that you can show as well, but nobody asks for it. Now, as time goes by, everyone starts talking about this person who can throw a 150mph fastball.
Now a new generation comes along. The stories get told to the kids. The children marvel at the fact that someone could throw a ball so fast. They might even try to replicate the speed by practicing every day.
Yet at the end of the day, was a 150mph fastball ever thrown?
This is essentially the foundation of Langan’s theory.

You can see his foundation of his theory so his theory if you can call it that is also shit. Of course there is no theory, he claims he has a haypothesis. But interestingly he uses the same approach that you do by saying prove to me god does not exist.

for the millionth time you cannot prove something does not exist if indeed it does not exist and that includes god. especially as we know that the ancient people invented the idea to xpalin things they did not understand. Thigs like volcano, flooding, desease etc etc

[Lordo]

...thanks Pyr; very interesting stuff.

I finally get you RW. Your character is such that if anybody put a pile of shit infront of you you would take a whif and say that is interesting, where did I smell that before?

[repulsewarrior]

...yes, i have an open mind despite my own opinion; i encourage other readers to read and to decide/think for themselves.

...i don't automatically assassinate characters to get my point across; talking about character.

...you can learn a lot from shit, like anything else; calling shit, shit, is not an answer, especially when it stinks there is a reason why.

Begging us to prove the existence of God to knock us down may make you feel superior and wise: you can't prove that such a notion is mere fantasy either.

...either way, the question has not been answered, although it seems you really don't care about (the) answers; only that you are "right".

Having choice may not prove the existence of God, but consciousness is a Universal phenomena; rocks and mushrooms think too.

...i am shit, therefore you are shit; i ask what is shit?

[Pyrpolizer]

Instead of watching stupid videos that someone else made to suit his own needs, and instead of reading someone else's clueless understanding of his theory, you better download his theory and read it yourself (it's 56 pages long) or just read his interview here:

https://superscholar.org/interviews/chr ... el-langan/

Start from where it says:
"Can you sketch the CTMU — in plain English — for our readers? "

Warning: there's asmall part that refers to religion, but that doesn't concern me actually other than as an example to understand what he says.

Einstein had an IQ of 185 (?) yet very few people can even come close to understanding his theories. This guy has 200-210!!

You seemed to be well impressed with his IQ, I would need to see his certification before I even begin to believe his result.

Secondly were you born stupid or were you educated into stupidty afterwards,

If he indeed has pages showing mathematical calculations to prove the existance by all means post it here and lets have a look at it. But if it is anything like the logic he has used in the past I would not bother it is bound to be shit.

If his proofs are anything like this, I do believe he knows what to do with them after turning them into an egg shape.

The Scientific Arguments Presented by Christopher Langan
From a scientific standpoint, Christopher Langan’s theory is more of a hypothesis than an actual theory. His observations are ideas that have no way to be proven falsifiable because they are subjective. There is no real way to experiment to see if his ideas could be proven true, just as there are no real ways to experiment to see if they could be proven false.
His arguments are also filled with neologisms. Here’s an example of a neologism to consider.
Imagine that everyone says that you can throw a 150 mile per hour fastball. No one is baseball can throw a ball that fast. Not even a professional. But you’ve told a friend that you can throw that fast. Maybe you’ve got some “proof” that you can show as well, but nobody asks for it. Now, as time goes by, everyone starts talking about this person who can throw a 150mph fastball.
Now a new generation comes along. The stories get told to the kids. The children marvel at the fact that someone could throw a ball so fast. They might even try to replicate the speed by practicing every day.
Yet at the end of the day, was a 150mph fastball ever thrown?
This is essentially the foundation of Langan’s theory.

You can see his foundation of his theory so his theory if you can call it that is also shit. Of course there is no theory, he claims he has a haypothesis. But interestingly he uses the same approach that you do by saying prove to me god does not exist.

for the millionth time you cannot prove something does not exist if indeed it does not exist and that includes god. especially as we know that the ancient people invented the idea to xpalin things they did not understand. Thigs like volcano, flooding, desease etc etc

When you copy -paste from other sources you should also give the link. What you are doing making it look as if it's your own thoughts is called plagiarism.

That said a theory is always a theory. Einstein's relativity theory says that it's the matter itself (in the form of mass or energy) -you never knew that mass and energy is the same thing did you? - that causes the bendingng of the time-space grid, and this itself creates gravity. In other words you may get gravity from pure energy.
This theory has never been proven. So why do you think Scientists have so much respect for this particular theory, that has never been proven?

I am afraid you didn't read anything from what the man himself said. Actually you may have read a small part, but didn't understand anything, so you turned to other idiots who didn't understand anything either to convince you that the man is telling nonsense.

I am not convinced he is telling nonsense, in fact I totally agree with him on the concept of reality.

[Pyrpolizer]

The theory paper (56 pages in pdf) can be downloaded from here
https://fdocuments.in/document/the-ctmu ... heory.html

[Lordo]

The theory paper (56 pages in pdf) can be downloaded from here
https://fdocuments.in/document/the-ctmu ... heory.html

I have no interest in downloading or readin 56 pages of drivel unless it is all mathematical equations that prove his god. In anycase they better be known mathematical formulas rather than he invented to suit his purposes.

Why don't you post the mathematical proof?

As to what O copy and paste from other sources, it is quite obvious when I do that as to the source, the material stantds up for it self, it does not need sourcing.

If I was posting any mathematical calculations I would not need to post the link to the sourse, would I?

[Pyrpolizer]

The theory paper (56 pages in pdf) can be downloaded from here
https://fdocuments.in/document/the-ctmu ... heory.html

I have no interest in downloading or readin 56 pages of drivel unless it is all mathematical equations that prove his god. In anycase they better be known mathematical formulas rather than he invented to suit his purposes.

Why don't you post the mathematical proof?

As to what O copy and paste from other sources, it is quite obvious when I do that as to the source, the material stantds up for it self, it does not need sourcing.

If I was posting any mathematical calculations I would not need to post the link to the sourse, would I?

You are so ignorant that you don't even know that modern top level maths
are mostly based on logic, are oftem close to Philosophy, and more often than not don't use equations,
and when they do they are just PhD type simple equations unknown to most people.
Here's an example of the latest mathematical proof. How many equations do you see in there?
I can refer you to 100s of proofs like that.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/mathemati ... cal-world/

Mathematicians Bridge the Divide Between Infinity and the Physical World.

Furthermore you refuse to even download and read his theory.
I personally did read it and I am convinced he is on the right track.
Therefore I am wasting my time with you. I actually regret joining this discussion,
which you turned down to street level thinking of the lowest possible level.

[Pyrpolizer]

Here's a mathematical proof that uses a lot of math symbols, simple definition equations, to end up proving something logically.
http://www.birs.ca//workshops//2018/18w ... s/chow.pdf

** The link downloads a pdf document automatically in your downloads folder.